[whatwg] Reserving XRI and URN in registerProtocolHandler

Brett Zamir brettz9 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 26 02:54:57 PST 2010

On 11/26/2010 6:18 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 26.11.2010 05:20, Brett Zamir wrote:
>> I'd like to propose reserving two protocols for use with
>> navigator.registerProtocolHandler: "urn" and "xri" (or possibly xriNN
>> where NN is a version number).
>> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Resource_Identifier for info
>> on XRI (basically allows the equivalents of URN but with a user-defined
>> namespace and without needing ICANN/IANA approval). Although it was
> You don't need ICANN/IANA approval.
> You can use informal URN namespaces, use a URN scheme that allows just 
> grabbing a name (such as URN:UUID) *or* write a small spec; for the 
> latter, the approval is *IETF* consensus (write an Internet Draft, 
> then ask the IESG for publication as RFC).

My apologies for the lack of clarity on the approval process. I see all 
the protocols listed with them, so I wasn't clear.

In any case, I still see the need for both types being reserved (and for 
their subnamespaces targeted by the protocol handler), in that 
namespacing is built into the XRI unlike for informal URNs which could 
potentially conflict.


More information about the whatwg mailing list